Dan made a comment in the show that he likes boxing but doesn't like the violence. But that's just what boxing is though two people in a ring slugging each other. I don't want to be critical of Dan or anything but I just don't get that part.

You might be getting distracted by a passing statement of his. Part of the podcast was about the toughness of two generations ago, and the toughness of the generation today, and I don't think he meant toughness in a nonsensical way, but more of living conditions that compared ancestors to modern folk, i.e. us.

Remarkably, boxing always reminds me of my mother. When my father and his friends would watch a boxing match on TV, my mother often cried at the fact that these men were gathered around a TV watching two men beat each other bloody. - I know this because as a child I asked my mother why she was crying in the kitchen.

I know but I'm just saying that's most of what boxing basically is, two men beating each other to a bloody pulp. And if you didn't like violence then you should be totally repulsed by boxing. But I guess I shouldn't thing too much about it and just let Dan be Dan.

I see what your saying about Dan "liking" boxing, and about the conflict of liking, or not liking violence. I've watched boxing matches and found myself ducking at punches that weren't there for me.

I'd certainly not propel the watching of boxing in my home, but Dan might be just a few years "tougher" than me. OR we're misunderstanding what he said, or at least focusing on the wrong part of the story in this thread.

Boxing sucks in my opinion, yet other people decide to do it, and I'm sure their decision to box is influenced by coaches and other people who were involved in that game prior.

To me the boxing match he mentioned is like the wars we all fund. Whats even more sick about the wars is that we don't even get to watch the violence we adamantly, or inadvertently (By force in some ways through the IRS) support. http://www.warresisters.org/pages/piechart.htm

I think you're missing it a bit... it's not so much using boxing as a grand allegory... I don't think he's using it as anything like that at all.

I think he's using boxing as an exact metaphor for so many things in civilization or culture or war...

Unlike other solo sports like Tennis or Golf - boxing has this exact progression that is repeated over and over. There's no tools or anything either, so there's like this naked exposure of self involved. It's people starting from nothing, dedicating themselves to this craft that most likely won't pay off at all, and has such a terrible terrible consequence to failure... And trying to make something out of whatever talents they can muster. Aside from the actual fights themselves, there's so much to a boxer that isn't like other sports in terms of preparation, and then there's so few ACTUAL battles. Much like ancient warfare. You're only in actual danger 36 minutes twice a year.

And the process of a boxing match is very much like this high stakes game of chess, where you've got this requirement to maintain focus and concentration and planning and skill, with this sort of ultimate consequence of pain or violence as a consequence of failing in an area. There's trade-offs like "how much violence are you willing to acquiesce to to inflict the same on your opponent.."

I'm with Dan - the violence, eh, it's hard to watch sometimes. It's not the violence that makes it so engrossing - but it's a necessary component. Without the violence, there is no drama because there's no consequence for failure in an area. The violence is a necessary component within the context of the affair to give the sport its significance.

If you see boxing as a high stakes strategic chess match, then it's not quite the violence that does it for you, it's the intellectual chess that is the draw.

Although, when Dan was making the point about two equal boxers with equal trainers, before I though "heart or determination" is the component that separates then, I was thinking, "How is Dan gonna build a podcast around getting hometown judges to award you a decision?"

cnpeters wrote:I think you're missing it a bit... it's not so much using boxing as a grand allegory... I don't think he's using it as anything like that at all.

I think he's using boxing as an exact metaphor for so many things in civilization or culture or war...

Unlike other solo sports like Tennis or Golf - boxing has this exact progression that is repeated over and over. There's no tools or anything either, so there's like this naked exposure of self involved. It's people starting from nothing, dedicating themselves to this craft that most likely won't pay off at all, and has such a terrible terrible consequence to failure... And trying to make something out of whatever talents they can muster. Aside from the actual fights themselves, there's so much to a boxer that isn't like other sports in terms of preparation, and then there's so few ACTUAL battles. Much like ancient warfare. You're only in actual danger 36 minutes twice a year.

And the process of a boxing match is very much like this high stakes game of chess, where you've got this requirement to maintain focus and concentration and planning and skill, with this sort of ultimate consequence of pain or violence as a consequence of failing in an area. There's trade-offs like "how much violence are you willing to acquiesce to to inflict the same on your opponent.."

I'm with Dan - the violence, eh, it's hard to watch sometimes. It's not the violence that makes it so engrossing - but it's a necessary component. Without the violence, there is no drama because there's no consequence for failure in an area. The violence is a necessary component within the context of the affair to give the sport its significance.

Although, when Dan was making the point about two equal boxers with equal trainers, before I though "heart or determination" is the component that separates then, I was thinking, "How is Dan gonna build a podcast around getting hometown judges to award you a decision?"

If you see boxing as a high stakes strategic chess match, then it's not quite the violence that does it for you, it's the intellectual chess that is the draw.

You are exactly right cnpeters. You explained it better than I could. Boxing (and the passion for it) is hard to understand if you aren't into it (but so is American Football..)

And your line about rigged judges was funny. I had sportscaster Charlie Steiner tell me once that I was crazy for wanting to see boxing cleaned up. He said: "...and ruin the last true vestige of capitalism in sports?!?!?!"

But your points about the attraction of boxing apart from violence, I think, are right on. The violence is what sets up (and off) the dramatic tension that has built up over time for all sorts of reasons. In addition, the strategy and tactics of boxing is as fascinating for me to get into as the strategy and tactics of armies is. I don't like killing in war either (which is violence as well of course), but I love strategy and tactics (the moves that allow the violence to occur).

Boxing has been a sport for a VERY long time, and many cultured people (and even philosophers at times!) have been drawn to it. They aren't all there for the blood and pain, I assure you.

I've been a life-long martial artist (Kung fu, karate, jujitsu) and I think completely understand where Dan's coming from. There *is* something intrinsically visceral and true about any combat sport. For me, it's not so much as liking the violence, but liking the fact that two more-or-less equal guys (conditioning, training, skill) struggle against each other and only one guy gets to walk away as the winner. There is also something like beauty of movement when you see the efficiency and power of a really good technically skilled or talented fighter, but maybe that takes a bit of actually training in the art.

More so, I think the chess-like aspect is even more true in a sport like Mixed-Martial Arts (MMA) where you sometimes like match ups like striker vs grappler: i.e. one guys is a great puncher and kicker, while another guy is great at wrestling but has a disadvantage on his feet. It then become a question of who can make the other guy fight on his terms. Or you might have one fighter who's known for fast knock-outs (but tires easily) versus another guy who has tremendous endurance and can take a lot of punishment.

Dan wrote: You are exactly right cnpeters. You explained it better than I could. Boxing (and the passion for it) is hard to understand if you aren't into it (but so is American Football..)

And your line about rigged judges was funny. I had sportscaster Charlie Steiner tell me once that I was crazy for wanting to see boxing cleaned up. He said: "...and ruin the last true vestige of capitalism in sports?!?!?!"

But your points about the attraction of boxing apart from violence, I think, are right on. The violence is what sets up (and off) the dramatic tension that has built up over time for all sorts of reasons. In addition, the strategy and tactics of boxing is as fascinating for me to get into as the strategy and tactics of armies is. I don't like killing in war either (which is violence as well of course), but I love strategy and tactics (the moves that allow the violence to occur).

Boxing has been a sport for a VERY long time, and many cultured people (and even philosophers at times!) have been drawn to it. They aren't all there for the blood and pain, I assure you.

Charlie Steiner *gets it*. I don't know what he gets, I don't know how he came to acquire that knowledge, I don't know how I could glean some of it off him - but I just see him as "getting life."

I hope to come to that understanding in life.

To crossover into that other show for a sec - Boxing, in your terms, seems like the ultimate "mushrooms and onions" deal. Depending on your perspective, only one of either the violence, the chess, or the people is the steak. The others are the mushrooms and onions that don't seem so good on the side, but are necessary to cook the dish. Without the violence and the chess, it's either a drunken brawl or watching Kasparov's greatest hits on ESPN Classic.

I'm in Youngstown, Ohio - and the whole boxing metaphor is really fascinating to think about - as our city, area, and region are in that whole "boxer's life" progression - at the exact same time as we have one of those boxers in the middle (or is it the end?) of that exact same timeline...

Pittsburgh had a boxer like that about 6-7 years ago too - and now that he's basically done... when you see the "boxer phenomenon" happen around you, if you can take the mushroom and the onions, it's a fascinating thing to watch in its entirety.

First of all I do want to say I can understand Dan's love of the strategy and tactics in boxing (when I first listened to the podcast I thought Dan just liked to see the boxers rise to the top of their game and then fall) but there is another point I would like to add on the subject of boxing. Dan uses the boxer and an example of how an individual applies to the quote he mentioned in his podcast, "History is filled with the sounds of silk slippers coming down the stairs and wooden shoes going up." But I wanted to point out couldn't that saying be applied to any individual who is corrupted by wealth and fame. I was watching an E True Hollywood Story on Brittany Spears once. While she was once one of the most popular singer on the charts (she had to do some work to get there) she was later shown in the program going to a dance rehearsal where she was barely able to dance at all.

I can understand it perfectly. years ago I was able to write a 1000 word sports psychology assignment on boxing. There is no other sport in my opinion, where indivudual psychology is more important. I did Fencing at school, and to me it seemed that the same strategy, psychology was implemented, but boxing required it to be far more intense and sustained for much longer.

Come to think of it, after reading Carnage and Culture and starting to read The Western Way of War, boxing would seem the best analogy for VDH's ever-used term: "shock battle"

It's now very common to hear people say, 'I'm rather offended by that.' As if that gives them certain rights. It's actually nothing more... than a whine. 'I find that offensive.' It has no meaning; it has no purpose; it has no reason to be respected as a phrase.

Though I have watched boxing and enjoyed certain matches I've seen, I always remember something a high school teacher said about it many years ago.

While there is violence in other sports, the object in Football is to score touchdowns, in Baseball runs, Basketball baskets and in Hockey goals. For Boxing part of the objective is to physically "hurt" the other guy. It is not on the level of Gladiators or jousting, but doing physical damage to the other guy is a major part of winning.

I'm not necessarily advocating anything, but it is something to think about.

From an otherwise forgettable teacher, for what it is worth, I've never forgotten what he said.

davehag5 wrote:From an otherwise forgettable teacher, for what it is worth, I've never forgotten what he said.

I'm a lil' drunk so I'll be brief. If you liked that teacher, you'll love Victor Davis Hanson. I wen't to his site and I don't think I can get on board with his politics at all (I'd say the same about his post 9/11 comments in Carnage and Culture) but his historical anylisis, I thought was very good from a sociological standpoint.

Maybe that discrepancy says more about me than him, I don't know, but I'd check him out.

It's now very common to hear people say, 'I'm rather offended by that.' As if that gives them certain rights. It's actually nothing more... than a whine. 'I find that offensive.' It has no meaning; it has no purpose; it has no reason to be respected as a phrase.

davehag5 wrote:From an otherwise forgettable teacher, for what it is worth, I've never forgotten what he said.

I'm a lil' drunk so I'll be brief. If you liked that teacher, you'll love Victor Davis Hanson. I wen't to his site and I don't think I can get on board with his politics at all (I'd say the same about his post 9/11 comments in Carnage and Culture) but his historical anylisis, I thought was very good from a sociological standpoint.

Maybe that discrepancy says more about me than him, I don't know, but I'd check him out.

I agree with you. It is why we interviewed him in that HH show. I also don't like VDH's politics (he's a neo-con), but he gives unique insights into the classical period (and yes...his insight into the motivations and mindsets of the peoples involved is one of the best things he does IMHO...as much as that is possible of course...)

Boxing is about psychology, spirit, strategy, boldness. You can learn a thousand lessons from a single boxer, good or bad. It is no different than Asian martial arts events or wrestling. It is conflict at the individual level.

We have team sports representing conflict at a tactical level.

Without sports, we lose are fortitude -- and I am not really a sports person. I still recognize the value.